APS_Oct2022

First page 1 Next page Last page

Volume 76

OCTOBER 2022

Number 3

AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY F ounded in 1848 I ncorporated in 1887 in M assachusetts

2022-2023

PRESIDENT K. GASIC

FIRST VICE PRESIDENT P. CONNER

SECOND VICE PRESIDENT M. OLMSTEAD

TREASURER A. ATUCHA

EDITOR R. P. MARINI

SECRETARY L. DEVETTER

RESIDENT AGENT MASSACHUSETTS W. R. AUTIO

EXECUTIVE BOARD

N. BASSIL Past President

K. GASIC President

P. CONNER 1 st Vice President

M. OLMSTEAD 2 nd Vice President

L. DEVETTER Secretary

TOM KON ('19 - '23)

GINA FERNANDEZ ('21 - '24)

DAVID KARP ('22 - '25)

ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2020-2023 B. BYERS M. DOSSETT A. PLOTTO E. VINSON D. WARD 2021-2024 J. SAMTANI D. TRINKA S. MEHLENBACHER M. FARCUH G. BRAR 2022-2025 C. LUBY M. MUEHLBAUER L. REINHOLD A. WALLIS S. YAO

CHAIRS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Editorial R. PERKINS-VEAZIE Wilder Medal Awards B. BLACK

Shepard Award F. TAKEDA Nominations M. PRITTS

Membership M. PRITTS

U. P. Hedrick Award E. FALLAHI

Website M. OLMSTEAD

Registration of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars J. PREECE, K. GASIC, D. KARP

Volume 76 CONTENTS

October 2022

Number 3

Published by THE AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY Journal of the American Pomological Society (ISSN 1527-3741) is published by the American Pomological Society as an annual volume of 4 issues, in January, April, July and October. Membership in the Society includes a volume of the Journal. Most back issues are available at various rates. Paid renewals not received in the office of the Business Manager by January 1 will be temporarily suspended until payment is received. For current membership rates, please consult the Business Manager. Editorial Office: Manuscripts and correspondence concerning editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor: Richard Marini, 203 Tyson Building, Department of Plant Science, University Park, PA 16802-4200 USA; Email: richmarini1@gmail.com. Manuscripts submitted for publication in Journal of the American Pomological Society are accepted after recommendation of at least two editorial reviewers. Guidelines for manuscript preparation are the same as those outlined in the style manual published by the American Society for Horticultural Science for HortScience, found at http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ashs.org/resource/resmgr/files/style_manual.pdf . Postmaster: Send accepted changes to the Business office. Business Office : Correspondence regarding subscriptions, advertising, back issues, and Society membership should be addressed to the Business Office, C/O Heather Hilko, ASHS, 1018 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314; Tel 703-836 4606; Email: ashs@ashs.org Page Charges : A charge of $50.00 per page for members and $65.00 per page ($32.00 per half page) will be made to authors. In addition to the page charge, there will be a charge of $40.00 per page for tables, figures and photographs. Society Affairs : Matters relating to the general operation of the society, awards, committee activities, and meetings should be addressed to Michele Warmund, 1-31 Agriculture Building, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia MO 65211; Email:warmundm@missouri.edu. Society Web Site : http://americanpomological.org ‘Honeycrisp’Apple Maturity, Quality and Storage Disorders According to Interior and Exterior Tree Canopy Position – Renae E. Moran, Jennifer R. DeEll, and Cindy B.S. Tong. ............................................ 94. Postharvest Characteristics of ‘MN80’ (Triumph™) Apple Fruit Compared to ‘Cortland’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ – Cindy B.S. Tong, Renae E. Moran, Rebecca Wiepz, and Zata M. Vickers ................................. 103 Five-year Evaluation of Selected Strawberry ( Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) Cultivars for Improved Sustainability of the Strawberry Industries inAlabama and the SouthAtlantic Region of the United States – Edgar L. Vinson III, Penelope A. Perkins-Veazie, Eugene K. Blythe, Elina D. Coneva, and Matthew D. Price ................................. 114 The Role of Xylem in Bitter Pit Incidence of Apple: A Review – Chayce Griffith and Todd C. Einhorn (U.P. Hedrick Award – First Place)........................................................................................................................ 125 Reevaluating Summer Hedging and Root Pruning for Intensive Apple Orchard Systems: A Review – Thiago Campbell, James R. Schupp, and Richard P. Marini (U.P. Hedrick Award – Second Place).................. 136 Giuseppe Arcimboldo: An Enduring Muse for The Arts, Sciences, and Pop Culture – Michele R. Warmund. . 146 Carlos Fear: Recipient of the 2022 Wilder Medal. ............................................................................................... 158 About the Cover: Dragon Fruit ............................................................................................................................. 160

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

Journal of the American Pomological Society 76(3): 94-102 2022 ‘Honeycrisp’ Apple Maturity, Quality and Storage Disorders According to Interior and Exterior Tree Canopy Position Abstract Apples are typically spot picked according to color and, therefore, indirectly according to canopy light expo sure that affects fruit peel anthocyanins. We studied how interior and exterior canopy positions influenced fruit maturity and storage disorder incidence in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples grown in Maine (ME) USA, Minnesota (MN) USA and Ontario (ON) Canada, and harvested two to three times. Harvest maturity was more advanced in exte rior compared with interior fruit. In both ME and ON, index of absorbance difference (I AD ) was higher for interior fruit compared to exterior fruit. Starch pattern index (SPI) was lower in interior fruit in ME and ON during the first harvest, but not the later harvests, and not in MN where starch breakdown was advanced. Internal ethylene concentration (IEC) at harvest, measured in ON only, was lower in interior fruit during the first harvest, but no difference occurred between the two positions in the latter two harvests. After four months of cold storage plus 1- and 7-d shelf tests, IEC (measured in ON only) was lower in exterior fruit. In all three sites, soft scald, soggy breakdown and bitter pit incidence did not vary between the canopy positions. Fruit were not conditioned to 10 degrees C and stored at 0.5 °C to allow for full development of chilling injury disorders. Canopy position altered fruit maturation and quality with no significant effect on soft scald or bitter pit. Additional index words: bitter pit, chilling injury, ethylene, Malus xdomestica , shade, soft scald, soggy break down R enae E. M oran a* , J ennifer R. D e E ll b , and C indy B.S. T ong c

‘Honeycrisp’ apples are prone to several stor age disorders that vary with harvest maturity and other unknown factors that may be envi ronmentally related (Lachapelle et al., 2013; Leisso et al., 2019; Moggia et al., 2015; Mo ran et al., 2009; Watkins et al., 2005). The light and temperature environment within a tree canopy varies according to canopy po sition as shoots intercept sunlight (Jackson and Sharples, 1971; McTavish et al., 2020; Woolf and Ferguson, 2000). Despite the use of size-controlling rootstocks that maximize light, high density systems with closer row spacing of tall trees can lead to poor light in the lower canopy (Robinson et al., 2011). The effect of light and canopy exposure on fruit quality is well documented (Jackson and Sharples, 1971; Robinson et al., 1983),

but understanding the influence on maturity and storability is increasingly important for new cultivars that are prone to postharvest losses. Apples are typically spot picked ac cording to color and, therefore, indirectly ac cording to canopy light exposure that affects anthocyanin synthesis and red skin color of fruit (Giap et al., 2021). Interior fruit with less sun exposure and less color are typically harvested later than exterior fruit in orchards where spot picking is practiced. These po tential differences in environment can influ ence how fruit perform in the supply chain and can cause losses when storage practices are inappropriate for the maturity of the fruit (McTavish et al., 2020). Canopy position influences fruit maturity and ripening, but not in a consistent manner.

a School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Monmouth, ME 04259, USA; rmoran@maine.edu b Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Simcoe, Ontario, Canada, N3Y 4N5; jennifer.deell@ ontario.ca c Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA; c-tong@umn.edu * Corresponding author

A pple

In shaded or interior apples, ethylene produc tion and IEC at harvest can be lower (Jackson et al., 1977), similar (Chu, 1980; Nilsson and Gustavson, 2007), or greater (Kalcits et al., 2019) than in exterior or sun exposed apples. After ripening, interior fruit can have greater ethylene production (Nilsson and Gustavson, 2007), or lower ethylene production after long term storage (Chu, 1980) than exterior apples. Starch breakdown, another indicator of maturity, is slower in shaded ‘Honeycrisp’ grown in Quebec, Canada (Chouinard et al., 2019), but is unaffected by shading in ‘Hon eycrisp’ grown in Washington (Serra et al., 2020). The disparity among these studies in the effect of position on maturity and ripen ing may be due to variations in cultivars, cli mate, tree size, degrees of canopy shading, and physiological maturity at harvest. The influence of canopy position may have an impact on ‘Honeycrisp’ storage dis orders that are also influenced by harvest ma turity such as bitter pit (DeLong et al., 2014; Meheriuk et al., 1994), soggy breakdown and soft scald (Ehsani-Moghaddam and DeEll, 2013). ‘Honeycrisp’ apples are highly prone to bitter pit, a disorder that is more severe in fruit from the lower compared to upper canopy fruit (Kalcits et al., 2019), but un like ‘Cox’s Orange Pippin’, in which bitter pit is less severe in fruit from shaded inte rior or lower canopy positions (Ferguson and Triggs, 1990; Jackson and Sharples, 1971). In a controlled shading study, fruit from trees shaded in the previous growing season had greater bitter pit than those from unshaded trees, possibly due to seasonal carry over ef fects on calcium (Jackson et al., 1977). Soft scald, a chilling injury, was less prevalent in fruit from the lower canopy in Washington grown ‘Honeycrisp’ where incidence is rela tively low (Kalcits et al., 2019). The effect of canopy position on soft scald may be dif ferent in the cooler production regions of the Midwest and northeastern USA and Canada where incidence can be severe (DeLong et al., 2014; Moran et al., 2020; Watkins et al., 2005).

Understanding how canopy position influ ences fruit maturity and disorder develop ment is important for harvest management of apples that are prone to quality issues and storage disorders. The objective of this study was to compare harvest maturity, fruit quality and storage disorder development in ‘Hon eycrisp’ apples from the canopy interior and exterior in three geographical locations in the Midwest and northeastern USA and Canada. Materials and Methods ‘Honeycrisp’ apples were harvested from trees grown in three locations which were 1) Monmouth, ME USA (44° 13’ 51” N, 70° 4’ 5” W), 2) Lake City, MN USA (44° 51’ 30” N, 93° 39’ 41” W) and 3) Norfolk County, ON Canada (42° 52’ 44” N, 80° 15’ 22.6” W). Trees were grafted to ‘Geneva 30’ (G.30) rootstock planted in 2007 in ME, ‘Budagov sky 9’ (B.9) planted circa 1997 in MN and ‘Malling 26’ (M.26) planted in 1998 in ON. In each location, fruit were harvested ac cording to canopy position, the exterior rep resenting greater exposure to light, and the interior representing shade or partial shade. Fruit were harvested twice in ME (19 Sept. and 2 Oct. 2018), and three times in ON (14 Sept., 28 Sept. and 4 Oct.) and MN (19 Sept., 25 Sept., and 2 Oct.). In ME, 40 to 60 fruit per tree and canopy position were harvested from each of five trees at each harvest date. In ME, a different set of five trees was har vested each time. Fifteen fruit per tree and canopy position in MN and 30 fruit per tree in ON were harvested from the same set of trees at each harvest date. Fruit were stored at 0.5 °C for 4 months in air at each location and with no conditioning. Quality and maturity at harvest were mea sured on a subsample of 10 fruit in ME and ON, and 5 fruit in MN. Harvest measure ments included fresh weight, percent peel blush, SPI, soluble solids concentration (SSC) and flesh firmness. In addition, I AD was measured in only ME and ON using a Delta Absorbance Meter® (Sinteleia, Bolo gna, Italy). Measurements 1 and 7 days after

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

removal from cold storage included SSC and firmness for 10 fruit in ME and ON, and 5 fruit in MN. Starch staining with iodine was measured by dipping or spraying each cross-sectioned apple in or with potassium-iodine solution and using a visual rating where 1 = all starch remaining and 8 = no starch (Blanpied and Silsby, 1992). Flesh firmness was measured on two peeled sides of each fruit using a drill press-mounted penetrometer (McCormick Fruit Tester model FT 327, Italy) in MN; an electronic texture analyzer (Güss, South Africa) in ON, and an EPT-1 (Kelowna, BC, Canada) in ME, all equipped with an 11-mm diameter plunger. Soluble solids concentra tion was measured using a hand-held tem perature-compensated refractometer (Atago, Tokyo, Japan) models PAL-1 3810A in ME, ATC-1E in MN, and PR-32 in ON) from juice expressed during pressure testing. Solu ble solids was measured on a pooled sample, except in MN, where SSC was measured for each individual fruit. The percentage of peel with red coloration was visually estimated for each fruit. In ON, IEC was measured in 10 fruit at harvest, and at 1 and 7 d after removal from storage. A 3-mL gas sample was withdrawn from the core using a syringe and injected into an Agilent 7820A gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies Canada Inc., Missis sauga, ON, Canada) equipped with a 0.25 mL sample loop, flame ionization detector, and 25 m x 0.53 mm CarboBOND capillary column (Agilent Technologies Canada Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada). The injector, col umn and detector temperatures were 150, 80 and 250 °C, respectively. High-grade helium was used as the carrier gas, with a typical run time of 1.5 min. The proportion of fruit with soft scald, soggy breakdown, bitter pit, diffuse flesh browning, lenticel breakdown and leather blotch was measured on 30 to 50 fruit per tree and canopy position in ME, 20 fruit in ON and 10 fruit in MN. This experiment had a randomized design

with factorial arrangement of harvest date and canopy position. Each combination of harvest date and canopy position had five single-tree replications. The main effects of site, harvest date, canopy position and their interactions were subjected to analysis of variance using the SAS GLIMMIX pro cedure (software version 9.1, SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC) with means separation per formed by LSMEANS and using the slice option to dissect interactions (Marini, 2022). Disorder incidence data was arcsine trans formed, and IEC was log-transformed for analysis, but actual means are presented. Results and Discussion Maturity indicators. Starch pattern index (SPI) varied between canopy positions (Ta ble 1) with significant harvest and site inter actions. In ME and ON, SPI was lower in fruit from the interior, but by the 2 nd harvest differences became non-significant. A lower SPI indicates less starch breakdown. Canopy position did not significantly affect SPI in MN. In all three sites, SPI increased with later harvest consistent with advancing ma turity, and was nearly complete by harvest 2 for ME and MN fruit. Fruit peel I AD , a measure of peel chloro phyll, varied with canopy position with site interactions. In both ME and ON, I AD was higher for interior fruit with all harvest dates indicating less advanced maturity. Site dif ferences occurred as well, but only for inte rior fruit. During harvest 1, I AD was greater in ME than ON, but the opposite occurred during harvest 2 when I AD was lower in ME than in ON. Fruit peel I AD was not measured in MN. Internal ethylene concentration (IEC), measured in ON only, varied with canopy po sition and harvest date (Table 2). At harvest, IEC was lower for interior fruit than exterior, but this occurred only for the first harvest. An increase in IEC occurred with later har vest date but only in fruit from the interior. For exterior fruit, there was no harvest date effect. After four months of cold storage,

A pple

Table 1. Harvest maturity and fruit quality of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples according to harvest date (H1, H2 and H3) and canopy position in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN) and Ontario (ON). Table 1. Harvest maturity and fruit quality of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples according to harvest date (H1, H2 and H3) and canopy position in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN) and Ontario (ON).

Position

Starch pattern index

Exterior

6.0

7.8

7.1

7.9

4.1

5.6

6.6

Interior

4.5

7.4

6.5

7.1

7.9

2.7

5.2

6.3

P -value

0.001 z

0.072

0.002

Index of absorbance difference

Exterior

0.86

0.56

0.90

0.76

0.62

Interior

1.34

0.79

1.02

0.89

0.79

P -value

0.001

0.039

0.024

0.004

z P -values for pairwise comparisons. ns indicates nonsignificance. z P -val es f r i i i ifi .

325

IEC was greater for interior fruit than for exterior fruit at both d1 and d7 at room tem perature. This position effect was significant in fruit from each harvest. The delay in maturity in fruit from the canopy interior was based on less starch breakdown and higher I AD values in ME and ON and lower IEC during the first harvest in ON. Differences in harvest maturity were minimal in MN. ‘Honeycrisp’ apples grown in WA also had greater IEC in fruit from the lower canopy compared to the upper, but in fruit closest to the tree trunk, IEC was great er than in fruit towards the outer tip of the limbs (Kalcits et al., 2019). Pear fruit from the lower canopy display slower maturity at

harvest as measured by greater I AD and firm ness at harvest, but elevated ethylene bio synthesis gene expression compared to fruit from the canopy top (Jaho et al., 2014). In our study, differences in I AD persisted through the 2 nd and 3 rd harvest, but IEC differences did not, and were reversed after storage be coming greater for interior than for exterior fruit. Shaded apples and plums not placed in cold storage display a more rapid ripening despite no difference or delay in harvest ma turity (Murray et al., 2005; Nilsson and Gus tavsson, 2007). In contrast, pears from the canopy interior held in long-term controlled atmosphere storage ripened more slowly (Serra et al., 2018). We stored apples in air

Table 2. ‘Honeycrisp’ apple internal ethylene concentration ( μL • L -1 ) in fruit harvested at three dates (H1, H2 and H3) from the interior and exterior canopy in Ontario, and measured at harvest and after 4 months of cold storage at 0.5 o C plus 1 and 7 days at room temperature. Table 2. ‘Honeycrisp’ apple internal ethylene concentration (μL• L -1 ) in fruit harvested at three dates (H1, H2 and H3) from the interior and exterior canopy in Ontario, and measured at harvest and after 4 months of cold storage at 0.5 o C plus 1 and 7 days at room temperature. At harvest Stored + 1d Stored + 7d Position H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 Exterior 16.0 z 15.4 7.2 41.7 22.7 23.0 64.6 35.9 26.5 Interior 3.4 14.6 9.6 64.4 32.0 32.2 97.1 61.4 44.4 P -value 0.001 y 0.083 ns y 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.025

z Log transformed for analysis with back transformed means. y P -values for pairwise comparisons. ns indicates nonsignificance. tr f . y P -values for pairwise comparisons. ns indicates nonsignificance. z

326

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

for four months, so these storage conditions may have led to altered effects on ripening according to canopy position compared with long-term controlled atmosphere storage or with 1-methylcyclopropene treatment. Fruit quality. Fruit quality was generally af

fected by canopy position and harvest date, but also varied with site. Fruit weight was greater for fruit from the exterior compared to interior during both harvests in ME, and with the first harvest in both MN and ON (Table 3). Fruit were largest in ON, interme diate in ME and smallest in MN. Fruit from

Table 3. Fruit quality of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples at harvest and after 4 months cold storage, and according to harvest date (H1, H2 and H3) and canopy position in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN and Ontario (ON). Table 3. Fruit quality of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples at harvest and after 4 months cold storage, and according to harvest date (H1, H2 and H3) and canopy position in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN) and Ontario (ON).

Position

Fruit weight (g)

Exterior

203

236

174

183

184

248

251

253

Interior

159

200

142

168

189

220

235

232

P -value

0.001

0.004

0.010

0.019

0.072

Peel blush (% of surface)

Exterior

Interior

P -value

0.001

Soluble solids concentration (%) at harvest

Exterior

11.5

12.5

12.7

11.8

11.1

11.3

11.8

Interior

9.8

11.2

11.7

12.0

12.5

10.1

10.8

11.1

P -value

0.001

0.002

0.026

0.030

0.002

0.019

Soluble solids concentration (%) after storage + 1d

Exterior

12.5

12.7

11.0

11.2

12.7

11.9

12.0

Interior

11.7

12.1

9.8

10.4

12.4

10.8

11.1

10.9

P -value

0.001

0.065

0.057

0.098

0.005

0.024

0.006

Firmness (N) at harvest

Exterior

55.1

49.4

66.2

62.6

46.1

66.4

62.5

60.8

Interior

57.6

54.4

68.2

62.5

48.9

67.7

63.1

60.1

P -value

ns z

0.071

0.001

0.046

Firmness (N) after storage + 1d

Exterior

63.5

60.4

57.2

53.0

40.6

67.2

65.5

63.5

Interior

66.3

62.6

57.6

54.7

48.5

68.8

65.6

65.1

P -value

0.001

z P -values for pairwise comparisons. ns indicates nonsignificance.

327

A pple

Storage disorders. Storage disorders oc curred in all three sites, but with no consis tent canopy position effect (data not shown). Soft scald did not differ between the two can opy positions, except in MN fruit from the third harvest when it was more severe in inte rior fruit. Diffuse flesh browning and lenticel breakdown incidence varied between canopy position in ME with the 2 nd harvest date when it was more severe in fruit from the exterior (5.6%) compared with the interior (0.6%). In MN and ON, diffuse flesh browning was less than 1%. Soggy breakdown, bitter pit and leather blotch did not vary with canopy posi tion. The lack of canopy position effect on bit ter pit was not consistent with previous stud ies (Kalcits et al., 2019; Marini et al., 2022). Despite the standard foliar calcium, bitter pit occurred in ME and ON where incidence was as high as 11% and 14%, respectively. No bitter pit occurred in MN where size was generally smaller and trees were grafted to B.9 rootstock which increases leaf and fruit calcium compared to M.26 (Fazio et al., 2020), the rootstock used in ON. The lack of canopy position effect on soft scald contrasts with a previous study where soft scald was greater at lower positions, but with no difference between fruit closest to the trunk compared with near the tip of the limb (Kalcits et al., 2019). In our study, har vest maturity was delayed in fruit from the interior, but this did not influence soft scald

the canopy exterior had greater peel surface with blush than fruit from the interior. This was significant for all sites and harvest dates. Fruit from MN generally had more blush than from ME or ON, and ON fruit had less blush than the other two locations. Exterior fruit had greater SSC than interior fruit for all harvest dates and in all three sites except for the second harvest in ON. After storage, SSC was greater in fruit from the canopy exterior compared with the interior, but this difference was not significant for fruit from the latter harvests in ME and MN. After a 7-d shelf test, SSC was significantly greater with exterior fruit (not shown) with no har vest date or site interactions. In ME and ON, fruit firmness at harvest and after storage did not vary between canopy positions. In MN, fruit firmness at harvest was greater in fruit from the canopy interior, but after storage, this was significant for only the third harvest. After and a 7-day shelf test, canopy position had no effect on firmness in any site except in ON for fruit from the third harvest which was greater in fruit from the interior (data not shown). When comparing apples from the canopy interior harvested at a later date to exterior apples harvested earlier, maturity and fruit quality were generally similar. Fruit from the interior at the 2 nd harvest had similar I AD and fresh weight as exterior fruit at the 1 st harvest, but peel color of interior fruit did not become as great as exterior fruit until the 3 rd harvest.

Supplement 1. ANOVA P -values for the main effects and their interactions. Supplement 1. ANOVA P -values for the main effects and their interactions. Factor Starch pattern index Index of absorbance difference Fruit weight Peel blush Soft scald Soggy breakdown Bitter pit

Lenticel breakdown

Diffuse flesh browning

Leather blotch

Site

0.001

0.058

0.001

0.010

0.003

0.001

0.007

0.002

0.004

Harvest

0.001

0.023

0.100

0.024

Position

0.001

0.039

0.046

S x H

0.001

ns z

0.092

0.005

0.045

0.009

0.002

H x P

0.041

0.076

S x P

0.001

0.076

0.038

0.002

S x H x P

0.014

0.086

0.045

0.018

z ns indicates nonsignificance.

328 329

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

100

330

Supplement 2. ANOVA P -values for the main effects and their interactions. Supplement 2. ANOVA P -values for the main effects and their interactions. IEC firmness

SSC

harvest

d 1

d 7

harvest

d 1

d 7

harvest

d 1

d 7

Site

0.001

Harvest

0.001

0.086

0.034

Position

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.003

0.001

S x H

ns z

0.001

0.002

H x P

0.041

S x P

0.001

0.002

0.016

0.040

S x H x P

z ns indicates nonsignificance.

331 332

6 Supplement 3. Storage disorder incidence (%) in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples after 4 months cold (0.5 °C) storage and according to harvest and tree canopy position in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN) and Ontario (ON). Soft Scald MN ON Position H1 H2 H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 Soft scald Exterior 0.4 19 4 30 38 0 4 58 Interior 0.0 30 0 40 66 0 2 42 P -value ns ns ns ns 0.001 ns ns ns Soggy breakdown Exterior 0 0.0 6 2 0 0 0.0 1.0 Interior 0 0.4 4 10 0 0 0.5 0.5 P -value ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Bitter pit Exterior 9.5 10.6 0 0 0 6.0 7.5 0.5 Interior 12.0 7.5 0 0 0 11.5 13.5 3.0 Supplement 3. Storage disorder incidence (%) in ʽHoneycrispʼ apples after 4 months cold (0.5°C) storage and according to harvest and tree canopy positions in Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN) and Ontario (ON).

P -value

0.091

0.063

Diffuse flesh browning

Exterior

5.6

Interior

0.6

0.5

P -value

0.001

Lenticel breakdown

Exterior

5.3

0.5

Interior

0.6

0.0

P -value

0.079

y ns indicates nonsignificance.

333

A pple

101

or soggy breakdown compared with exterior fruit. Canopy position altered fruit maturation and fruit quality with no significant effect on soft scald or bitter pit, two storage disorders that are associated with harvest maturity. Acknowledgements This research was conducted as part of the multistate project NE1336 USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The au thors are grateful for funding from the On tario Apple Growers, Canadian Horticul tural Council, the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station for project # MN 21-028. This project was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project Number ME0-31404 through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station. We thank Pepin Heights Orchard for their collaboration. Mention of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not con stitute a guarantee or warranty of the product, nor does it imply approval or disapproval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that may also be suitable. Literature Cited Blanpied, G.D. and K. Silsby. 1992. Predicting har vest date windows for apples. Cornell Univ. (Itha ca, N.Y.) Info. Bul. 221. Chouinard, G., J. Veilleux, F. Pelletier, M. Larose, V. Philion, V. Joubert, and D. Cormier. 2019. Impact of exclusion netting row covers on ‘Honeycrisp’ apple trees grown under northeastern North American conditions: effects on photosynthesis and fruit qual ity. Insects 10:2014. Doi:10:3390/insects10070214 Chu, C. L. 1980. Study of the current maturity indices in relation to the position of ‘Red Delicious’ apples on the tree. PhD Thesis, Washington State Univ. DeLong, J., R. Prange, P. Harrison, D. Nichols, and H. Wright. 2014. Determination of optimal harvest boundaries for ‘Honeycrisp’ TM fruit using a new chlorophyll meter. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94:361-369. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps2013-241 Ehsani-Moghaddam, B. and J. DeEll. 2013. Relationships among postharvest ripen ing attributes and storage disorders in ‘Hon eycrisp’ apples. Fruits 68(4):323-332. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits/2013078 Ferguson, I.B. and C.M. Triggs. 1990. Sampling fac

tors affecting the use of mineral analysis of apple fruit for the prediction of bitter pit. New Zealand J. of Crop and Hort. Sci. 18:2-3. https://doi.org/10.10 80/00140671.1990.10428086 Fazio, G., J. Lordan, M.A. Grusak, P. Francescatto, and T. Robinson. 2020. I. Mineral nutrient profiles and relationships of ‘Honeycrisp’ grown on a genet ically diverse set of rootstocks under Western New York climatic conditions. Sci. Hort. 266:108477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.05.004 Giap, D.V., S. Kim, Y. Lee, and H-J Kweon. 2021. Ef fect of reflected sunlight on differential expression of anthocyanin synthesis-related genes in young apple fruit. Int. J. of Fruit Sci. 21: 440-455. doi.org/ 10.1080/15538362.2021.1896981 Jackson, J.E. and R.O. Sharples. 1971. The influence of shade and within-tree position on apple fruit size, colour and storage quality. J. of Hort. Sci. 46(3):277-287. Jackson, J.E., J.W. Palmer, M.A. Perring, and R.O. Sharples. 1977. Effects of shade on the growth and cropping of apple trees. III. Effects on fruit growth, chemical composition and quality at harvest and af ter storage. J. Hort. Sci. 52:267-282. Jaho, A., M.A. Rahim, S. Serra, F. Gagliardi, N.K. Jaho, S. Musacchi, G. Costa, C. Bonghi, and L. Tai notti. 2014. Impact of tree training system, branch type and position in the canopy on the ripening homogeneity of ‘Abbé Fétel’ pear fruit. Tree Ge nomics & Genomes 10(5):1477-1488. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11295-014-0777-2 Kalcits, L., J. Mattheis, L. Giordani, M. Reid, and K. Mullin. 2019. Fruit canopy positioning affects fruit calcium and potassium concentrations, disorder in cidence, and fruit quality for ‘Honeycrisp’ apple. Can. J. of Plant Sci. 99:761-771. Lachapelle, M., G. Bourgeois, J.R. DeEll, K.A. Stew art, and P. Séguin. 2013. Modelling the effect of preharvest weather conditions on the incidence of soft scald in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 85:57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.post harvbio.2013.04.004 Leisso, R., I. Hanrahan, and J. Mattheis. 2019. As sessing preharvest field temperature and at-harvest fruit quality for prediction of soft scald risk on ‘Honeycrisp’ apple fruit during cold storage. Hort Science 54(5):910-915. https://doi.org/10.21273/ HORTSCI13558-18 McTavish, C.K., B.C. Poirer, C.A. Torres, and J.P. Mattheis. 2020. A convergence of sunlight and cold chain: the influence of sun exposure on postharvest apple peel metabolism. Postharvest Biol. and Tech nol. 164:111164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.posthar vbio.111164 Marini, R.P. 2022. A note on the analysis and interpre-

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

102

tation of designed experiments with factorial treat ment structure. J. Amer. Pomol. Soc. 76(1):27-35. Marini, R.P., E.K. Lavely, T.A. Baugher, R. Crass weller, and J.R. Schupp. 2022. Using logistic re gression to predict the probability that individual ‘Honeycrisp’ apples will develop bitter pit. Hort Science 57(3)391-399. https://doi.org/10.21273/ HORTSCI16081-21. Meheriuk, M., R.K. Prange, P.D. Lidster, and S.W. Porritt. 1994. Postharvest disorders of apples and pears. Agr. and Agri-Food Canada Pub. 1737/E. Moggia, C. M Pereira, J.A. Yuri, C. A. Torres, O. Hernández, M.G. Icaza, and G.A. Lobos. 2015. Pre harvest factors that affect the development of inter nal browning in apples cv. Cripp’s Pink: Six years compiled data. Postharv. Bio. Tech. 101: 49-57. Moran, R.E., J.R. DeEll, and W. Halteman. 2009. Ef fects of preharvest precipitation, air temperature, and humidity on the occurrence of soft scald in ‘Honeycrisp’apples. HortScience 44(6):1645-1647. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.6.1645 Moran, R., J. DeEll, and C. Tong. 2020. Regional variation in the index of absorbance difference as an indicator of maturity and predictor of storage disor ders in apples. HortScience 55:1500-1508 https:// doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI15162-20 Murray, X.J., D.M. Holcroft, N.C. Cook, S.J.E. Wand. 2005. Postharvest quality of ‘Laetitia’ and ‘Son gold’ ( Prunus salicina Lindell) plums as affected by preharvest shading treatments. Postharvest Biol. and Technol. 37:81-92. doi:10.1016/j.posthar vbio.2005.02.014

Nilsson, T. and K. Gustavsson. 2007. Postharvest physiology of ‘Aroma’ apples in relation to position on the tree. Postharvest Biol. and Tech. 43:36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.07.011 Robinson, T., E.J. Seeley, and B.H. Barritt. 1983. Effect of light environment and spur age on ‘De licious’ apple fruit size and quality. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108(5):855-861. Robinson, T.L., S.A. Hoying, S.A., and G.H. Regi nato. 2011. The tall spindle planting system: prin ciples and performance. Acta Hort. 903:571-579 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.903.79 Serra, S., N. Sullivan, J. Mattheis, S. Musacchi, and D. Rudell. 2018. Canopy attachment position influ ences metabolism and peel constituency of Euro pean pear fruit. BMC Plant Biol. 18:364. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1544-6 . Serra, S., S. Borghi, G. Mupambi, H. Camagro Alvarez, D. Layne, L. Kalcits, and S. Musacchi. 2020. Photoselective protective netting improves ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit quality. Plants 9:1708. https:// doi:10.3390/plants9121708 . Watkins, C.B., M. Erkan, J.F. Nock, K.A. Iungerman, and R.E. Moran. 2005. Harvest date effects on ma turity, quality and storage disorders of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples. HortScience 40(1):164-169. https://doi. org/10.21273/HORTSCI.40.1.164 Woolf, A.B. and I.B. Ferguson. 2000. Postharvest responses to high fruit temperatures in the field. Postharvest Biol. and Technol. 21:7-20. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0925-5214(00)00161-7

103

Journal of the American Pomological Society 76(3): 103-113 2022 Postharvest characteristics of ‘MN80’ (Triumph™) apple fruit compared to ‘Cortland’ and ‘Honeycrisp’

C indy B.S. T ong 1* , R enae E. M oran 2 , R ebecca W iepz 3 , and Z ata M. V ickers 4

Additional index words: firmness, sensory evaluations, soluble solids concentration, storage disorders

Abstract ‘MN80’, a cross between ‘Honeycrisp’ and ‘Liberty’, a newly-released apple sold under the Triumph trade mark, is meant to be marketed primarily to home gardeners and small-scale commercial orchards. It was selected for release based on its fruits’ resistance to apple scab, thus requiring less spraying than scab-susceptible culti vars. The quality of ‘MN80’ fruit from two growing locations over multiple years was assessed at harvest and after storage for four months at 0-1 °C and 4-5 °C. Mean firmness of Wisconsin-grown ‘MN80’fruit decreased as harvest week increased, but mean fruit fresh weight and total soluble solids concentration (SSC) remained the same over harvest time, which was also observed for ME-grown fruit. Fruit stored at 4-5 °C exhibited more shrivel and loss of firmness than fruit stored at 0-1 °C. Percentages of fruit showing internal browning and soft scald in storage increased with harvest date for ME-grown fruit in 2019 but not 2021. Consumer sensory panels evaluating newly-harvested fruit liked ‘Honeycrisp’ and Maine-grown ‘MN80’fruit best, followed by Wisconsin grown ‘MN80’fruit, then ‘Cortland’ fruit. However, after 4 months of storage, Maine-grown ‘MN80’ fruit had the highest overall liking scores of all the stored cultivars. Mean sensory attribute scores of Maine- and Wisconsin grown ‘MN80’ fruit changed little with storage, whereas stored ‘Honeycrisp’ and ‘Cortland’ had lower scores than newly-harvested fruit. For all cultivars, storage temperature had no effect on sensory attribute scores. These data suggest that ‘MN80’ fruit retain characteristics that appeal to consumers between harvest and 4-5 months of cold storage.

‘MN80’ (Triumph TM , Bedford et al., 2021), a cross between ‘Honeycrisp’ and ‘Liberty’, is the newest release from the University of Minnesota apple breeding program. ‘Lib erty’, a cross between ‘Macoun’ and Purdue 54-12, was created in a cooperative project between the Department of Pomology and Viticulture and the Department of Plant Pa thology at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva (Lamb et al., 1978). It has resistance to apple scab, cedar apple rust, fire blight, and mildew, so is a good cultivar for reduced fungicide spray programs, but may need management of other diseases, such as sooty blotch and fly speck. ‘MN80’ has two genes for scab resis

tance (MN Agric. Expt. Station, 2021), so is being marketed to home consumers and small orchards where apple scab is prevalent. The fruit of ‘MN80’are red and globose, and ripen about a week later than ‘Hon eycrisp’ fruit, which are known for a crisp texture that can be maintained through six months of cold storage (Tong et al., 1999). Inheritance of this trait by ‘MN80’ fruit would enhance its attraction to home or chardists and small acreage farmers with retail farm markets. However, ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit are subject to various storage disor ders, such as bitter pit, soft scald, and soggy breakdown (Moran et al., 2010; Watkins et al., 2004), and inheritance of susceptibility

1 Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, 1970 Folwell Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108 USA; c-tong@umn.edu 2 School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, P.O. Box 179, Monmouth, ME 04259, rmoran@maine.edu 3 Peninsular Agricultural Research Station, 4312 Hwy 42 North, Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235, rebecca.wiepz@wisc.edu 4 Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, 1334 Eckles Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, zvickers@um * Corresponding author: phone 1-612-624-3418, fax 1-612-624-4941

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

104

77 Table 1. Dates of harvests in ME and WI of ‘MN80’ fruit and types of experiments done in ME, MN, 78 and WI done in 2017, 2018, and 2021. ‘Cortland’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit were also harvested in ME in 79 2021, with similar measurements made at harvest and after storage as with ‘MN80’ fruit. to these disorders would lead to postharvest losses for growers unable to use methods that could mitigate the disorders. The work de scribed here was initiated to characterize the harvest and postharvest qualities of ‘MN80’ fruit, and determine its possible appeal for a local, retail markets. In the upper Midwest and Northeast USA, ‘Honeycrisp’ and ‘Cor tland’ are currently grown for local markets. Therefore, harvest quality and postharvest performance of ‘MN80’ were compared with these two cultivars. Materials and Methods Materials. ‘MN80’ apple fruit were grown at the University of Wisconsin Peninsular Agricultural Research Station in Sturgeon Bay, WI (45° 9’ 43” N, 87° 22’ 56” W), and Table 1 . Dates of harvests in ME and WI of ‘MN80’ fruit and types of experiments done in ME, MN, and WI done in 2017, 2018, and 2021. ‘Cortland’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit were also harvested in ME in 2021, with similar measurements made at harvest and after storage as with ‘MN80’ fruit. 80 81

Year

Harvest Location

Harvest Dates

Measurements at Harvest

Storage Location and Temperature ( ° C)

Measurements after Storage

2017

29 Sept., 6 Oct., 13 Oct. 21 Sept., 28 Sept., 1 Oct., 5 Oct., 12 Oct., 19 Oct. 24 Sept., 8 Oct., 21 Oct.

firmness, FW, SSC, SPI

firmness

WI, 2 ° C

2018

firmness, FW, SSC, SPI

firmness

WI, 2 ° C

2019

firmness, FW, SSC, SPI

ME, 0.5 and 4 ° C

disorders, firmness, SSC

2021

14 Oct.

firmness, FW, redness, SSC, SPI

MN, 0-1 and 4-5 ° C

disorders, firmness, SSC, sensory evaluations

A pple

105

ME disorders, firmness, peel color, SSC, sensory evaluations FW is fresh weight, SSC is soluble solids concentration, and SPI is starch pattern index. FW is fresh weight, SSC is soluble olids concentration, and SPI is starch p ttern index. 27 Sept., 6 Oct. firmness, FW, redness, SSC, SPI ME, 1 and 4 ° C; MN, 0-1 and 4-5 ° C

the University of Maine Highmoor Farm in Monmouth, ME (44° 13’ 51” N, 70° 4’ 5” W). ‘MN80’ trees in WI were on ‘Budagov sky 9’ rootstock planted in 2014, while ME trees were grafted onto ‘Malling 26’ root stock planted in 2014. Dates of harvests, storage conditions and locations, and measurements made at harvest and after storage are shown in Table 1. Trees in WI were harvested in 2017 on 29 Sept., 6 Oct., and 13 Oct., in 2018 on 21 Sept., 28 Sept., 1 Oct., 5 Oct., 12 Oct., and 19 Oct., and on 14 Oct. 2021, comparable to the third har vest time in 2017 and the fifth harvest time in 2018. Only four trees had fruit in 2017 and 2018, so all available fruit were eventually picked over the course of each harvest peri od. The numbers of fruit that were harvested at each date allowed for sampling at harvest and each of the storage periods each year. For each harvest date, 10 and 15 fruit were picked in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and pooled from the four trees. Only fruit with well-developed red peel color were harvested at each date. All fruit harvested in 2021 (160 total) were shipped to MN for storage and consumer sensory testing. ‘MN80’ fruit in ME were harvested 24 Sept., 8 Oct. and 21 Oct in 2019. In 2019, five trees were harvested on the first two dates, but due to lack of fruit, only one tree was harvested on the last date. Harvest dates in 2021 were 27 Sept. and 6 Oct. Maine har vests in 2021 also included ‘Cortland’ fruit

on 27 Sept. and 6 Oct., and ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit on 15 Sept. and 28 Sept. ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit were conditioned for 7 days at 20 °C in ME which was the ambient temperature in the conditioning room which does not have tem perature control and represents conditions for most small farms in Maine. In 2021, a subset of ‘Cortland’ apples from harvest 1, ‘MN80’ from harvest 2 and ‘Honeycrisp’ harvested 8 Oct. were sent to MN for consumer sensory testing. The third harvest for ‘Honeycrisp’ apples for consumer testing was selected for improved peel color (89%) compared with the first two harvests. All shipped fruit ar rived in MN within 3 days of shipment. Maturity assessments. In 2017 and 2018, fresh weight, firmness, starch content, and total soluble solids concentration of WI grown ‘MN80’ fruit were measured at har vest using a total of five replicate fruit per harvest, randomly chosen from the pool of harvested fruit. SSC was measured on a com posite sample of juice from the five apples. In 2021, 10 ‘MN80’ fruit shipped from WI were chosen at random (from 160 total fruit), and assessed for fresh weight, redness (%), firmness, total SSC, and starch content upon arrival in MN. In ME, five single-tree replications were used in 2019, with 10 to 35 fruit harvested throughout the canopy per tree at each har vest date, avoiding the few poorly colored fruit. Five fruit from each replication were used for at-harvest assessments and the re-

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

106

mainder was placed in cold storage. In 2021, a pooled sample of 10 fruit from five trees of each cultivar were harvested at each harvest date. Ten fruit per cultivar and harvest date were used for at-harvest assessments, and the remainder were divided into three replica tions and placed in cold storage. Each culti var and harvest date had 10 to 30 fruit in each replication. Assessments were made of fresh weight, firmness, starch content, and total SSC, and done on the same days as harvest. Flesh firmness was measured on two op posing peeled sides of each fruit using drill press-mounted penetrometers (FHT 803, Test Equipment Depot, Melrose, MA in ME in 2019 and EPT-1, Lake City Techni cal Products, Kelowna, BC in ME in 2021; FT30, Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT in MN; and FT327, McCormick Fruit Tech, Yakima, WA in WI), all equipped with 11 mm diameter tips. SSCs were measured us ing hand-held temperature-compensated re fractometers (PAL-1 3810A, Atago, Tokyo, Japan in ME; ATC-1E, Atago, in MN; and REF103, General Tools and Instruments, L.L.C., Secaucus, NJ in WI) from juice ex pressed during pressure testing. SSC was measured on individual fruit in MN, and on a single collection of juice from five fruit in WI and 10 fruit in ME. For starch staining, a cross-section of each fruit was dipped or sprayed with potassium-iodine solution, and visually rated (Blanpied and Silsby, 1992). In addition, the index of absorbance difference (I AD ) was measured in ME on two opposite sides of each fruit, at the interfaces of red and green peel of each apple using a Delta Ab sorbance Meter® (Sinteleia, Bologna, Italy). Storage. WI-grown fruit were stored at 2 °C under normal atmospheric conditions in 2017 and 2018. In 2021, ‘MN80’ fruit shipped fromWI were placed in 6 boxes, with 25 fruit per box. Three boxes were stored at 0-1 °C, and three boxes were stored at 4-5 °C. Of the fruit shipped from ME, 10 to 12 fruit of each cultivar were stored at 0-1 °C, and another 10 to 12 fruit of each at 4-5 °C. Additionally, fruit were stored in ME at 0.5 °C for five months

in 2019 and at 0.5 and 4 °C for four months in 2021. All fruit were stored under normal atmospheric conditions. After removal from storage plus 1 and 7 days at 17 °C, fruit firm ness and total SSC were measured on 5 to 10 individual fruit per cultivar, harvest data and temperature (ME-stored fruit only). Occur rence of storage disorders was measured on 10 to 30 fruit from each cultivar, harvest date and storage temperature. Sensory evaluations. Sensory evaluations were performed by 117 panelists on 21 Oct. 2021 and by 96 panelists on 28 Jan. 2022 at the Sensory Center of the University of Min nesota. The University of Minnesota Institu tional Review Board approved all recruiting and experimental procedures of all sensory tests. Participants were screened to ensure that they did not have food allergies or sensi tivities, were at least 18 years old, and liked and consumed apples. They were compen sated $10.00 for completing the tasting. Fruit assessed just after harvest were delivered to the Sensory Center and stored at 4 °C for 24 h prior to evaluations. Fruit that had been in storage for 4 months were delivered to the Sensory Center and stored there at 4 °C for 48 h prior to testing. For all fruit used for sensory tests, sam ples of the three cultivars were prepared throughout the day of testing and served at room temperature. To prepare the samples, Sensory Center staff washed the apples; cut each fruit into 8 wedges, removing the core; and cut each wedge into three or four piec es, depending on the size of the apple. The pieces were placed in a bowl, sprinkled with anti-browning powder (BallFruit-Fresh ® Produce Protector, Rubbermaid Inc., Atlanta, GA), and then two pieces were placed into a translucent 59 mL cup (PC200, Fabri-Kal, Kalamazoo, MI) labeled with the particular apple’s sample code. One sample of each cul tivar was placed on a tray labeled with a par ticipant’s ballot number and arrange from left to right in the order in which the participant was to taste the samples. Tasting order was based on a William’s Latin Square across

Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72

Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog